Barack Obama has finally unveiled hard numbers and a plan of action for his call to expand wireless and broadband access to Americans who don't currently have it. (Source: Majordomo)

Among the targets of increased broadband coverage will be poor rural farming regions across the country. Many of these regions currently have no broadband or 3G cell phone service. (Source: Timberside Farms)

Inside Uncle Sam's magical self-funding internet dream

After
much talk, U.S. President Barack Obama has finally delivered a concrete plan
for how he will fund his plan for government-funded internet expansion.
The only thing is the published details [press release] concerning the plan jump all over
the place. But never fear, we're here to break it down for you, exactly
where the Obama administration (claims) the money for Nation wireless and
broadband is coming from and where it's supposed to be going to (and when).

I. Time Frame

First the time frame -- according to the release, the National broadband plan
will be executed over the next 10 years, with much of its success criteria
targeting improvements at the five year mark.

II. Funding

(This gets rather long... there's a quick cheat sheet at the end)

Funding for the initiative begins with the auction of 500 MHz of wireless spectrum over
the next decade. That measure is supposed to raise $27.8B USD in today's
money. Presumably this figure is after broadcasters' cut
from incentives auctions (more on that in a bit), but the release wasn't
exactly clear in this regard.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has
already found 115 MHz of unused government spectrum to put towards the auction
(hopefully this isn't a case like when the U.S. accidentally sold the spectrum it used for B-2 Stealth Bomber communications).
The NTIA is currently evaluating another possibly auctionable 95 MHz of
spectrum. That would bump the total to 210 MHz. And the NTIA thinks
it may be able to squeeze out a few more small chunks of spectrum by having
government networks make more efficient and full use of their allotted
spectrum.

President Obama hopes to get the remaining 250 to 300 MHz of spectrum via
incentive auctions for broadcast TV companies who are sitting on unused
spectrum. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission does not have the
power to hold these auctions. In order to hold the divided Congress will
have to approve of the plan.

Under the plan, most of the collected spectrum would be sold to companies like
Verizon Wireless or AT&T, while a small amount would be reserved for
unlicensed use. To "spur innovation" $3B USD of the auction proceeds
would be funneled to research grants for "emerging wireless technologies
and applications". This fund would be dubbed the Wireless
Innovation (WIN).

The next source of funding would come via a revamping of the Universal Services Fund (USF).
That fund currently pours $4.3B USD into the landlines. Under the
President's plan, that funding would be phased out and replaced with support
for funding broadband expansion and services in rural and low-income areas.
That funding could provide as much as $30-40B USD over the next decade,
depending on how fast landline subsidies are turned off.

Under the proposal a "one-time investment" of $5B USD would also be
added to the pool. This investment would go towards expanding rural 4G
wireless coverage.

President Obama is also calling for $10.7B USD, including $500M USD from the
WIN fund, to develop a modern public safety network to inform the public in the
event of a terrorist attack, national disaster, etc. Of that funding
$3.2B USD would go towards reallocating the D-Block of spectrum, which is
currently reserved for emergency communications. Under the plan their
might be auctions to telecoms, if those telecoms are willing to work to fund
and support coexisting emergency broadcast systems on their chunk of purchased
D-Block spectrum.

In total $7B USD would go towards directly deploying the network. And the
$500M USD from the WIN fund would go towards research and development of new
public safety broadcast technologies.

In short, this aspect of the funding would necessitate $10.2B USD on top of the
previous funding.

The remaining $9.6B USD from the auction would be put to use cutting a chunk
out of the growing deficit.

According to President Obama, $5B USD of the funding will be used to expand
wireless coverage from 95 percent of Americans to 98 percent of Americans.
Most of these 3 percent live in impoverished or remote areas that don't
make sense for the profit-driven telecoms to come to. That said, these
regions often perform vital functions to our nation's economy like
food-growing.

The additional 3 percent of Americans equates to roughly 9.2 million people.
That figure is substantially more sedate than the previous promise by the
FCC and Obama administration to cover 100 million people with 100 Mbps internet.
The additional coverage will all be high-quality 4G networks. (e.g.
LTE/WiMAX).

The benefits of the public safety network are obvious. The government
will be able to prevent some of the loss of life and property that
occurred in events like Hurricane Katrina. And the public will be less
likely to endure the fear and uncertainty that it did on the infamous 9/11
attacks in 2001.

The transferred $4.3B USD a year in USF funding will help deploy broadband to
many other rural Americans, without further expanding the budget.

And the WIN fund will likely go a long ways to support research at universities
and wireless startups across the country.

A final upside that must be considered is the positive effects of auction off
the 4G spectrum. While 500 MHz isn't
going to radical alter how we consume wireless data, it will go a long way
towards relieving congestion and delivering faster service. In fact, that
much spectrum would nearly double the amount currently available to the
wireless industry.

The Obama administration claims that, at the end of the day, broadband and
high-speed wireless access will spur new business development in rural areas
and help Americans enjoy a better standard of living. These seem like
good things and could lead to an increase in the GDP and, in turn, government
tax revenues.

IV. Analysis -- Super-Star or Fantastic Flop? The Outlook for the Plan

So what's the verdict on the plan as a whole?

Probably the best aspect of it is that if it sticks to its promises, it will
actually cut federal spending, rather than increase it. And the key parts
of the plan will largely be executed by private sector, which will please
proponents of the free market.

Also, it's hard to argue that the government should take no action
to try to expand wireless and broadband availability. Much like high-speed
rail, the U.S.'s competitors are spending to expand this infrastructure, and if
the U.S. doesn't keep up, it risks becoming a second-class power. And the
private sector, due its focus on profits, has expressed little interest in
preventing this from happening. So at the end of the day the government
has to step in, but the questions are "in what way?" and "how
much?"

The big problem with the plan is that it is perhaps overly optimistic.
The $10B USD could cover 9.2 million Americans with 4G,
if it was applied very efficiently. However, government efforts,
including those of the Obama administration (and its predecessor the Bush
administration) seldom showcase such fiscal responsibility.

In all likelihood the plan will end up either costing more than the Obama
administration's optimistic figure, or it will deliver less results.
Either way, people won't be happy.

In other words, this plan is good, but it's not great. It's a concrete
vision, but if we've learned anything from history it's an overly optimistic one.
In the end "yes we can" will likely become, "well we did
-- sort of". The effort will help the U.S. keep from falling behind
in the world tech race, but will it be enough? It's hard to say.
And it is equally hard to predict what the reaction across the political
spectrum will be to Obama's vision.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The commerce clause was abused with the Interstate system and it was abused with the health care act. Can we stop abusing this?

But at least Ike had a pretty good reason for it.From Wikipedia:

quote: Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.

Sounds pretty important compared to Obama's plan. I mean who is saying, "If we don't have the gov't step in and do something about the Internet, there will be no stopping the Germans?!"And also the Internet is already here. We already have a 'highway' when it comes to the Internet. In fact it is an 'information superhighway'.

It would be like if the gov't built the Interstate when we already had an Interstate. It would just had more bells and whistles that would've eventually come along anyway given a free market.

And I don't mean to sound down on the Interstate since that is in the past and I don't have to vote one way or another regarding that, but I do know that this Internet proposal (and the health care one while we are at it) certainly isn't needed as much as the Interstate.

The point of Obama's plan is to reach out to farmers and such. I got news for y'all...the Interstate doesn't go to farmers either.

This is clearly the feds trying to cross the line. And President Obama is a habitual line stepper.

Dude, are you insane? Do you really want to see the US invaded by <insert foreign country here> while 3% of the population can't tweet about it or update their facebook page? How was Eisenhower's motives more important?

What's missing here is that Eisenhower during WWII saw the US road infrastructure as a hindrance in logistics getting troops, supplies, and equipment from one end of nation to the other rapidly and in large scale. Rail wasn't fast enough and there weren't many transport aircraft available, and the transport aircraft that were available didn't carry much relatively speaking (DC-3 for example).

Web access for everyone is an entirely different theory and has nothing to do with national security and US military logistics which is definitely more important that BillyBob in DeMoines, IA checking out fat chick p0rn on his mobile phone.

And then there's the prospect of the Obama administration implementing an internet "kill" switch in the event of a so-called national emergency (like the Egyptian government shutting down web).

You know on second thought I think I once heard that although Ike was all for this Interstate system he feared the precedent it would set.

But I don't want to spread rumors. Please note that this is just me trying to remember something I once heard. Please let me know if any of you have heard of this. I tried to Google it, but to no avail.

Also it may have been some other proponent of the system other than Ike. But it was a proponent.

It's not so much that it's abused, it's just very vague and good lawyers - and politicians with lawyer backgrounds - can successfully navigate through the gray areas for the outcome they want.

The Commerce Clause is routinely cited as the validation for Obamacare mandating someone to buy into the program by law - and threaten those who do not with fines and possibly even worse. Normally it is unconstitutional for a government entity to force someone to buy a legally binding contract which is why so many states are rejecting Obamacare and intend on suing the federal government over it.

But the bottom line here is that the federal government - and politicians both Democrat and Republican - will do whatever they damn well please if they want it bad enough. And that includes confiscating your home through Eminent Domain.

Not buying something = not engaging in commerce. If not buying something is commerce, then what isn't commerce? There's nothing gray about it, we just have a buttload of political activist judges who don't do their job.

I'd also like to know how the courts are always split (depending on size) 4/3 or 5/4 or whatever on decisions. I mean really? Half of the super educated people interperet a constitution one way and the other half interperet it completely the opposite regarding our basic rights? How is this not explained by judges being bought off?

No, it is not. I believe it should be, Everyone here spends more money on healthcare than they know.

1. Most bankruptcy filed for medical reasons the people had health insurance when they started accumulating debt, guess who foots those bills, You do.

2. When someone waits until a situation is grave to go to the doctor ( which happens A LOT with people without medical insurance) The bills become astronomical and they never pay. Guess who pays the bill. YOU DO.

3. Health insurance isn't something that the free market should have anything to do with. There isn't a product that can be improved. They don't make anything, all you have is greedy people trying to get your money and give you as little in return for it as they can. Tell me how this is any better than government run health.

4. We pay MORE per person in this country because of how we handle health care. You would SAVE money with socialized health care. Do you honestly think you're getting a good deal from your health care provider? Even if you are getting it from work, that money still comes from somewhere. You would probably pay less in the tax increase than the money your employer could give you. And lets not forget

Most bankruptcy for filed for medical reasons is filed from people that had insurance when they started accumulating medical debt.

ya ya I get it, you guys think the government shouldn't do anything and have a huge bias against anything socialized. While I agree with that in many ways, something should be socialized.

You want more socialization to treat the symptoms of socialization. Another option is to treat the disease. You remove indigent care from the system and your argument is gone. Freely donated monies could be used to treat those who can not pay. If that money runs out before everyone is treated, then they don't get treated. Why should someone get the latest treatment to prolong their life for six months if they can't pay for it? Because the medical community gets to suck more money out of us. It is that simple. If the country as a whole truly cares about them, the money will be their from private sources. End of story.

You're baseing your whole argument on an assumption. In fact, The Idea that "Donated money" would pay for people who can not afford it is LAUGHABLE. I know people who could not get the care they needed and are filing bankruptcy.

What I think is funny is you do not understand that your HEALTH INSURANCE would not cover you in full, and that you would be reliant on this donated money as much as the next guy.

"You want more socialization to treat the symptoms of socialization" What a bunch of BS designed to be nothing more then an emotional appeal.

Cry me a river; the taxpayer pays the bill because the populace recognizes how ugly the world would be if hospitals plain refused treatment if they didn't think you could pay. That's why there's a Federal law requiring them to provide treatment. But it's pretty dishonest to insist we need a law to mitigate the negative, inherent consequences of another law.

If you live where there's avalanches, you take measures to protect yourself from avalanches. But if someone's CAUSING avalanches, you take steps to stop him from causing avalanches. Why should everyone else suffer because of a handful of deadbeats?

quote: Tell me how this is any better than government run health.

Choice. People tend to prefer it.

quote: We pay MORE per person in this country because of how we handle health care

We also don't have people waiting ten months for necessary surgery, nor are they banned from paying for such surgeries out of their own pocket. For every lousy thing you can say about privatized health care, there's a lousy thing to say about government-run health care.

Are you suggesting that the hospitals refuse treatment? Is that your answer??

Ok I just want to be clear that this is the answer, we just send people that cannot take care of themselves out to die.

And seriously, These walk in clinics do not take more then 30min to treat people, and they are FREE. So don't try and lie and say they wait for 10 months, THEY DO NOT. On average people in this country wait longer for health care.

In the context of this discussion, the difference is that of a Federal government mandate versus a State government mandate, and which level of government has the right to control what.

On one side, you have a federal government who is indeed slowly grabbing more and more power. But, on the other the hand you have States' Rights fundamentalists who want to pretend the Civil War never happened and refuse to acknowledge that it's 2011.

Exactly! You can decide not to buy a car and not have to buy insurance. With the mandated health insurance you have to decide not to live to not have to buy insurance. Therefore the exact analogy would not be states requiring you to buy car insurance but states requiring you go buy a car.

If the precedent of the insurance mandate stands then it opens the door for the Federal Government to require all citizens to buy a car, or to buy a house, or to buy pink hot pants, whatever you want to throw in there.

The commerce clause is there to regulate buying and selling across state lines or the procedures to do so, not to mandate any such purchases.

actually if you read federalist papers #41 or 42 I think it was Hamilton describes that the commerce clause is there to allow the federal government to put a TAX on goods traded between the states and not to deem how those goods are used or how many you have to purchase or any other tenuous association with the word REGULATE you wanna come up with. The clause is there to ensure free trade between the states themselves (meaning ny cant put a tax on something going to a slave state just because ny is opposed to slavery) and the indian nations but the federal government CAN tax it. Thats it.